The Case Against Reaganomics and Trumponomics
One of the best ways to look at the future is to look at the past. When people fail to look at the past, they are doomed to repeat history, time and time again. The world has seen this with tyrants, and in the United States with taxes. Taxes are how the government makes money to support programs such as welfare, Medicaid and running the military. The more the government cuts taxes the worse things become. Supply-side economics, also known as Reaganomics, now known as Trumponomics is and will be a failure. Although many Americans get excited about cutting taxes, it leads to a larger budget deficit and more national debt, tax cuts also do not pay for themselves, and they lead to less wage growth and …show more content…
Supply-side economics is best known in the United States as Reaganomics. In a paper published in the Financial Express called “Trumponomics: Where Supply-Side Meets Demand-side” it says, “Known under the rubric of Reaganomics, his economic policy focused on cutting taxes on individual income and corporate profits” (HT Media Ltd.). More specifically it targeted the upper class, and under Reagan supply-side economics also became known as trickle-down economics. The thinking behind this is if the taxes are cut on the upper class, then the money saved would be put back into the economy and thus increase the tax income. The reason that it is called trickle-down economics is that the cuts at the top would make their way down to the lower classes. Supply-side economics also focuses on the expansion of the private sector instead of the public sector. In a paper written by Joseph Umoren called “The controversial issues of Supply Side Economics” published in the Journal for Education for Business, the author talks about shifting the emphasis …show more content…
The Center on Budget and Policy, a nonpartisan institute, put out a paper detailing the myths on tax cuts, and one such myth is that taxes pay for themselves. In the paper titled “Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities” it states (regarding the Bush tax cuts), “But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President’s tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy: these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost” (“Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities”). It is well known that in 2008 there was a major recession, in fact, the greatest recession since the great depression. When President Obama came into office he inherited an approximately $1.3 trillion in debt, which could grow to approximately be $8 trillion over the next decade (Holan and Richert). This is a stark contrast to when Bush took office in 2001, when he inherited a budget surplus of $236 billion from Clinton (Jacobson). That means that Bush lost approximately $1.5 trillion in a period of 8 years. This is after the tax cuts of 2001. Time and time again it has been proven that statements about tax cuts increasing federal income are empirically not true. In an article written in the Daily Reckoning, it talks about the former White House budget director David Stockman’s opinion on the Trump tax cuts. In the article David Stockman, the budget director under Reagan is quoted
One of the best ways to look at the future is to look at the past. When people fail to look at the past, they are doomed to repeat history, time and time again. The world has seen this with tyrants, and in the United States with taxes. Taxes are how the government makes money to support programs such as welfare, Medicaid and running the military. The more the government cuts taxes the worse things become. Supply-side economics, also known as Reaganomics, now known as Trumponomics is and will be a failure. Although many Americans get excited about cutting taxes, it leads to a larger budget deficit and more national debt, tax cuts also do not pay for themselves, and they lead to less wage growth and …show more content…
Supply-side economics is best known in the United States as Reaganomics. In a paper published in the Financial Express called “Trumponomics: Where Supply-Side Meets Demand-side” it says, “Known under the rubric of Reaganomics, his economic policy focused on cutting taxes on individual income and corporate profits” (HT Media Ltd.). More specifically it targeted the upper class, and under Reagan supply-side economics also became known as trickle-down economics. The thinking behind this is if the taxes are cut on the upper class, then the money saved would be put back into the economy and thus increase the tax income. The reason that it is called trickle-down economics is that the cuts at the top would make their way down to the lower classes. Supply-side economics also focuses on the expansion of the private sector instead of the public sector. In a paper written by Joseph Umoren called “The controversial issues of Supply Side Economics” published in the Journal for Education for Business, the author talks about shifting the emphasis …show more content…
The Center on Budget and Policy, a nonpartisan institute, put out a paper detailing the myths on tax cuts, and one such myth is that taxes pay for themselves. In the paper titled “Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities” it states (regarding the Bush tax cuts), “But when Treasury Department staff simulated the economic effects of extending the President’s tax cuts, they found that, at best, the tax cuts would have modest positive effects on the economy: these economic gains would pay for at most 10 percent of the tax cuts’ total cost” (“Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities”). It is well known that in 2008 there was a major recession, in fact, the greatest recession since the great depression. When President Obama came into office he inherited an approximately $1.3 trillion in debt, which could grow to approximately be $8 trillion over the next decade (Holan and Richert). This is a stark contrast to when Bush took office in 2001, when he inherited a budget surplus of $236 billion from Clinton (Jacobson). That means that Bush lost approximately $1.5 trillion in a period of 8 years. This is after the tax cuts of 2001. Time and time again it has been proven that statements about tax cuts increasing federal income are empirically not true. In an article written in the Daily Reckoning, it talks about the former White House budget director David Stockman’s opinion on the Trump tax cuts. In the article David Stockman, the budget director under Reagan is quoted